drivin threw wales on sunday, not a thing on the road. was drivin threw conway in my vrs and i get stuck behind an old guy in a bmw doin , no joke 19mph!! im first behind him and a line of trafic is startin to form behind me. i was holdin back just incase he was gettin ready to turn, but no he was just ploddin along. so i indercated and pulled out to over take, just as i was over takin and commited to the move what do i see parked up but a mobile speed camera!! oh bugger was the words that came out my mouth. didnt manage to slow down in time and guess what, just had a letter threw the post doin 50mph in a 30 zone, 60 quid fine and three points!!!! old people doin 19mph in a 30 zone should be just as ilegal as speedin! if he was going a normal speed i wouldnt have over took and my licence would still be points free!!! so mad!!!! :mad: :mad:

IMO and you wont like it you were still very much in the wrong... 19 is alot closer to 30 then 50 is... maybe if you had been more patience you would not have 3 points... now..if the same man had been doing 19 in a 60 or 70 mph speed limit i woudl agree... its more dangerous but 19 in a 30 is not...

Joel

You have to be careful driving through Wales, they've got that complete toss pot police sargeant bloke brunstrum in charge, who regards people who speed as being worse than pedo's.

This is one case IMO where the law is an ***. Fair enough you were speeding, but you were put in the situation by someone who was in all likelihood, driving dangerously slowly, but yet, there is no law regarding this.

Hard lines mate.

You were lucky. 50 in a 30 is a summons according to ACPO Guidelines - or 4 to 5 points according to Magistrates guidelines for speeding offences.

Would agree with Joel...law states that the speed limit is 30mph, and it's not exactly a secret that North Wales has fairly draconian attitudes to speed enforcement.

You made the choice to do 50mph in a 30mph, exceeding the speed limit and breaking the law...so the blame lies firmly at your feet.

Doing 50mph in a 30mph and to just get 3 points and a £60 fine is pretty lucky anyway, I would've expected a court appearance for that!

Rob.

going slow is just as dangerous an speedin im my opinion because of the efects it has on other drivers and stress levels. you cant say that you have never been stuck behind a coffin dodger and not got wound up because they couldnt keep to the speed limit!

Also, how these muppets pass their tests I'll never know. You would get failed for doing 19 in a 30 zone on your test. And I'm assuming as you were able to overtake the road was straight and perfectly clear and visible, making 19 mph totally inappropriate for the conditions.

However, I'm sorry to say but I get the impression you arent going to get much sympathy from the do-gooders of the forum...

going slow is just as dangerous an speedin im my opinion

Unfortunately your opinion differs from those who make the laws...

you have never been stuck behind a coffin dodger and not got wound up because they couldnt keep to the speed limit!

Very true...however, you have to remember they are keeping to the law, if you're overtaking at over the speed limit then you're not. Making the decision to do this is entirely yours, and has risks associated with it...you can't blame other drivers if you make the wrong decision.

Rob.

the BMW driver may have known the camera was there and decide to drive slow to make someone overtake him

or his cars speedo may have been reading jus under 30 and didn't want to risk it

I dont think the point trying to be made is about how illegal his speeding was. I think the point is trying to put that law into perspective a bit more, and trying to emphasise how the law is followed by the letter with very little consideration to other contributing factors.

I think its 6 of one half a dozen of the other here and neither or all parties should have been warned accordingly

P.S you should have overtaken at 30mph and seen how many accidents you could cause ;-)

I find the speedo comment hard to believe. Chances are if it was reading 19 in mikejays speedo, it will NOT have been reading almost 30 in the BMW. Chances are he may have been going as low as 15 mph.

I do however, find the possibility that you were baited feasible.

However, I'm sorry to say but I get the impression you arent going to get much sympathy from the do-gooders of the forum...

If you do the crime, you do the time...nothing to do with being a do-gooder.

IIRC statistics show on average we all break the law 4 times a day, so based on the number of convictions the odds are fairly favourable. If you make a concious decision to break the law, you can't then complain when you get done for it...

Rob.

the old bloke probably saw the speed camera and made sure he was under the limit.probably laughed his 4ss off when you went passed him .

Also' date=' how these muppets pass their tests I'll never know. You would get failed for doing 19 in a 30 zone on your test. And I'm assuming as you were able to overtake the road was straight and perfectly clear and visible, making 19 mph totally inappropriate for the conditions.

However, I'm sorry to say but I get the impression you arent going to get much sympathy from the do-gooders of the forum...[/quote']

chances are if the man was old he just applied for a licence and got it with no test....

i dont see that anyone speeding shoudl get any sympathy, espcially 50 in a 30!

for those points and fine...let me ask..did you get to your destination any quicker??

my guess is, you did but it would have only been by just a few minuets did you make the most of those few mins? were they worth £60?

makes me laugh when im doing the speed limit someone passes me burning up more of there fuel over taking undertaking being dangeous and i catch them up at the next junction!! whats the point??

Joel

P.S you should have overtaken at 30mph and seen how many accidents you could cause ;-)

This is though isnt it. Drivers are told that if they keep at the speed limit or below, then they are safe drivers. Yet when you overtake someone its clearly safer to get it over and done with as quickly as possible, to reduce the time spent on the wrong side of the road, and yet they are sending out the message that if you need to overtake then sticking to the speed limit to do it is somehow safe.

I bet that driver who killed 4 cyclists the other week was driving safely, because he was under the speed limits.

The people who make these rules are muppets of the highest disorder.

This is though isnt it. Drivers are told that if they keep at the speed limit or below' date=' then they are safe drivers. Yet when you overtake someone its clearly safer to get it over and done with as quickly as possible, to reduce the time spent on the wrong side of the road, and yet they are sending out the message that if you need to overtake then sticking to the speed limit to do it is somehow safe.

I bet that driver who killed 4 cyclists the other week was driving safely, because he was under the speed limits.

The people who make these rules are muppets of the highest disorder.[/quote']

Thats the point i was getting at, if you did overtake at 30 and at the time it was safe to do so, yet unforseen circumastances meant that the fact you were doing 30, an accident happened, then you would be in the wrong....

I dont for one minute believe any law is written with real world intent. Its only written with the statistical evidence presented in front of them.... I bet if these statistics took into account, for example, how many pedestrians that were killed ACTUALLY "stopped, looked and listened" then we would know a more real world figure.

Yet when you overtake someone its clearly safer to get it over and done with as quickly as possible' date=' to reduce the time spent on the wrong side of the road

...

The people who make these rules are muppets of the highest disorder.[/quote']

OK, considering that having people blatting along at VMax into oncoming traffic is fairly obviously not a Good Thing, how would you change the existing legislation so you could have an enforceable means of permitting people to exceed a posted speed limit while overtaking?

Rob.

This is though isnt it. Drivers are told that if they keep at the speed limit or below' date=' then they are safe drivers. Yet when you overtake someone its clearly safer to get it over and done with as quickly as possible, to reduce the time spent on the wrong side of the road, and yet they are sending out the message that if you need to overtake then sticking to the speed limit to do it is somehow safe.

I bet that driver who killed 4 cyclists the other week was driving safely, because he was under the speed limits.

The people who make these rules are muppets of the highest disorder.[/quote']

so the new LAw should be if you want to go faster than the speed limit you have to be overtaking

OK' date=' considering that having people blatting along at VMax into oncoming traffic is fairly obviously not a Good Thing, how would you change the existing legislation so you could have an enforceable means of permitting people to exceed a posted speed limit while overtaking?

.[/quote']

Well you could have a rule about it stating that if you are overtaking on a single carriageway that the manouver should be completed as swiftly as possible. Difficult to prove of course, but if people actually used common sense instead of blindly following the letter of the law then it should be possible.

But basically I dont really think thats the issue here - I think the issue is, they are making out speed to be to blame for everything, when in actual fact they should be concentrating on picking out drivers who are driving in a demonstrably dangerous fashion, which could in fact put the guy doing half the speed limit in the frame. However, that is not as profitable...

But basically I dont really think thats the issue here - I think the issue is, they are making out speed to be to blame for everything, when in actual fact they should be concentrating on picking out drivers who are driving in a demonstrably dangerous fashion, which could in fact put the guy doing half the speed limit in the frame. However, that is not as profitable...

Hmm...based solely on evidence provided:

Individual driving at less than the posted speed limit in the direction of traffic

vs

Individual driving at nearly twice the posted speed limit against the flow of traffic.

I know who I'd put my money on for the outcome of an accident being worse.

Rob.

Welcome to North Wales - law breaking motorist not welcome.

outcome and cause are two entirely different issues though....

but driving standards are not important to Phoney Tony... cash is king.

doing 30mph would have enabled you to overtake in about 5 seconds. you should have dont that!

Numpty

Putting this case on one side and ignoring speed camera scenario...super slow drivers do drive me insane.

Normally they have a 5.0litre under the bonnet as well.

Buy a milk float

I've been just as annoyed with slow drivers in 30mph zones BUT:

a) 19mph in a 30 zone is slow but not painfully slow (i've had painfully slow in front of me plenty of times );

why was it a 30mph zone? - most 30 zones are because of built up area / people etc. If you are ovetaking and doing 50 in a high density zone then it is IMHO dangerous - what happens if a kid runs out in front of you? I accept there are some very odd 30mph zones on dual carriageways i.e. with barriers preventing pedestrians crossing etc - they, I admit, are crap and I struggle to understand the basis of the these limits.

c) Overtaking - I agree that overtaking as quickly as possible is the best way. However, nowadays I would say that overtaking in a built up 30 zone is almost always likely to be dangerous - my attitude is always to bite the tongue (or swear lots to myself ) and wait until out of the built up area;

d) N.Wales is a pain in the neck for speeding fines and driving like a granny is almost compulsory - maybe the "coffin dodger" already had 9 points from Brunstrom and is trying to keep his licence

Anyway, better to vent your frustrations on here than anywhere else